Speedom of Freech

@Rhywden Well, in the US, the first thing that comes to mind is an unholy trinity of Supreme Court cases making absolutely terrible decisions about who is and is not deserving of basic human rights: Dred Scott, Roe v. Wade, and Citizens United. None of the resulting decisions were things that should have been established by a court in the first place.

@Rhywden Well, in the US, the first thing that comes to mind is an unholy trinity of Supreme Court cases making absolutely terrible decisions about who is and is not deserving of basic human rights: Dred Scott, Roe v. Wade, and Citizens United. None of the resulting decisions were things that should have been established by a court in the first place.

2 out of 3 ain't bad. Citizen's United is an example of not legislating from the bench and throwing out unconstitutional regulation of speech.

@Rhywden Well, in the US, the first thing that comes to mind is an unholy trinity of Supreme Court cases making absolutely terrible decisions about who is and is not deserving of basic human rights: Dred Scott, Roe v. Wade, and Citizens United. None of the resulting decisions were things that should have been established by a court in the first place.

Then your laws were unclear or contradictory on the matters in question and it was up to your legislation to clarify things if the court's interpretation of the established laws was contrary to the intent behind the laws.

The fact that your Supreme Court had to rule on that only shows that the laws were anything but clear.

And now that I've read up on Dred Scott: Seriously? A case more than a century old?

2 out of 3 ain't bad. Citizen's United is an example of not legislating from the bench and throwing out unconstitutional regulation of speech.

Wrong. It invented two concepts out of whole cloth:

That money can be equated to First Amendment-protected speech

That non-human legal-fiction organizations are people with First Amendment rights to free speech

Both of these are horribly wrong and actively harmful to our society. But the thing that makes this case truly insane is that neither of those points are even what the original lawsuit was about! They were injected into the ruling by activist judges on the Supreme Court.

If you had your way, you'd make it illegal for people who have organized themselves and pooled their resources to use those pooled resources to peak out. If we were being consistent, we'd have to shut down newspapers.

non-human legal-fiction organizations are people with First Amendment rights to free speech

That's horribly wrong and actively harmful?

I see no reason why the government should be able to control or interfere with the speech of a non-human organization, in any way that goes above and beyond the ordinary requirements already imposed on the speech of individual people (consequences of lying, inciting violence, etc.).

That non-human legal-fiction organizations are people with First Amendment rights to free speech

I think it's kind of funny when I say, "Corporations are people," because people tend to think about just the legal entity version and not the actual people. You should think about why you want to shut down on organized, pooled speech in some circumstances but not others.

First, let me answer your question with a question. Do you agree that the ultimate purpose of laws is to encourage desirable behavior in society, or discourage undesirable behavior in society, according to the lawmaker's understanding of desirability? (Whether or not they're effective is a different matter entirely.)

I think it's kind of funny when I say, "Corporations are people," because people tend to think about just the legal entity version and not the actual people. You should think about why you want to shut down on organized, pooled speech in some circumstances but not others.

Again, where did I say that?

I don't believe in non-human entities having human rights. Not the ones I don't like, and not the ones I like either. Why are you assuming inconsistency where none exists?

@anotherusername That's a definition, not a purpose. (Also, I put in two sides to that purpose because there are positive laws which provide incentives to do things, as well as negative laws which define penalties for doing things.)

The basic purpose of having laws is, in a nutshell, to try to get society in general to act in desirable ways. Yes?

I don't believe in the humans who make up entities having their human rights stripped away when they're acting as agents of the entity rather than as themselves personally.

Begging the question. You're asserting that this is a "human right" to be "stripped away" when that's the fundamental subject of the current debate.

Now you're saying that Freedom of Speech isn't a human right?

No, of course that's not what you meant. It's just what you said. But seriously, what about the people who make up the corporation? You keep ignoring them and talking about non-human entities. Like...dogs or something made a movie about Hillary Clinton?

@anotherusername That's a definition, not a purpose. (Also, I put in two sides to that purpose because there are positive laws which provide incentives to do things, as well as negative laws which define penalties for doing things.)

The basic purpose of having laws is, in a nutshell, to try to get society in general to act in desirable ways. Yes?

No. The basic purpose of having laws is to get society in general to not act in undesirable ways.

But I think you're basically defining them as one and the same thing. If society does not act in undesirable ways, then you think it'll act in desirable ways. The only problem with that approach is that there are infinitely many more ways for society to figure out how to act in undesirable ways than anyone can, or should, want to legislate for. You cannot legislate "be kind to one another".

I don't believe in the humans who make up entities having their human rights stripped away when they're acting as agents of the entity rather than as themselves personally.

Begging the question. You're asserting that this is a "human right" to be "stripped away" when that's the fundamental subject of the current debate.

I'm asserting that there should be no question as to whether a human has the right to free speech, regardless of whether they are acting as the agent of themselves, a corporation, a government, or anything else.

Please do. But also provide a line of reasoning along with it, because otherwise you just continue to appear to display -grade reading comprehension, because you keep imputing to me beliefs and motivations that I do not actually hold.

Who are these non-human entities that are running corporations? This sounds like a big story!

See -grade reading comprehension, above. I never said anything about non-human entities running corporations; I said that corporations are non-human entities, and therefore are not deserving of human rights.

I said that corporations are non-human entities, and therefore are not deserving of human rights.

And I said that if you read or hear something that a human said or wrote, and figuring out whether they had the legal right to express that thought involves a question of whether they were acting as an agent of their own human person or as an agent of another person or thing when they said it (and the question of right isn't the question of whether it was authorized by ever of whom or what they are acting as an agent), then there's something fundamentally wrong with that question.

I'm asserting that there should be no question as to whether a human has the right to free speech, regardless of whether they are acting as the agent of themselves, a corporation, a government, or anything else.

Yes, I agree that a spokeperson has a right to free speech. Things get a lot more complicated, though, when it's paid speech, ie. advertising, particularly of a political nature. And that's where the Citizens United ruling really makes a mess of things.

Please do. But also provide a line of reasoning along with it, because otherwise you just continue to appear to display -grade reading comprehension, because you keep imputing to me beliefs and motivations that I do not actually hold.

It seems like you're not reading what I said, but OK...

That non-human legal-fiction organizations are people with First Amendment rights to free speech

People are making the speech that you're talking about. You want to shut them up.

Who are these non-human entities that are running corporations? This sounds like a big story!

See -grade reading comprehension, above. I never said anything about non-human entities running corporations; I said that corporations are non-human entities, and therefore are not deserving of human rights.

OK. But it was people who did all of the stuff. What about those people? Why do you want to prevent them from organizing and speaking?

I'm asserting that there should be no question as to whether a human has the right to free speech, regardless of whether they are acting as the agent of themselves, a corporation, a government, or anything else.

Yes, I agree that a spokeperson has a right to free speech. Things get a lot more complicated, though, <abbr="no pun intended">when it's paid speech, ie. advertising, particularly of a political nature. And that's where the Citizens United ruling really makes a mess of things.

Why is it so complicated? Citizen's United isn't at all like an ad for a product they're selling. How is it at all different from a NYT editorial?

People are making the speech that you're talking about. You want to shut them up.

No.

OK. But it was people who did all of the stuff. What about those people? Why do you want to prevent them from organizing and speaking?

Ah, now that's where we finally come to the crux of the discussion. It's not the speaking that's the problem; it's the organizing and. And the reason I find that problematic is that it has a strong tendency to drown out other speech, so that getting your message heard stops being a matter of who has the best argument and becomes, instead, a matter of who has the most resources and the best organizing tactics. That's a fundamentally problematic thing.

I know, right? Like...a printing press. What newspapers use to print their papers.

Where did I say anything at all to lead you to that conclusion?!? Is there any point anywhere in this conversation in which I mentioned printing presses?

But we have freedom of association. Which grants us the ability to form a group and pool our resources behind one speaker that shares our views.

Freedom of association is about being allowed to choose whether or not to do business with whoever we want. (Which has also been heavily under attack by activist judges in recent years, but that's another topic.) Equating it to advertising is a novel legal interpretation.

@masonwheeler
Uh, we must be using different definitions of association.

Article 11 – Freedom of assembly and association

Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.

Though I probably should of said assembly.

Stormed at with shot and shell, Boldly they rode and well, Into the jaws of Death, Into the mouth of hell.

And the reason I find that problematic is that it has a strong tendency to drown out other speech, so that getting your message heard stops being a matter of who has the best argument and becomes, instead, a matter of who has the most resources and the best organizing tactics.

But so much more goes into presenting ones views than simply who has the best argument.

In an ideal world, sure the best argument would always win, but we are so very far away from that.

Stormed at with shot and shell, Boldly they rode and well, Into the jaws of Death, Into the mouth of hell.

Freedom of Association encompasses both an individual's right to join or leave groups voluntarily, and the right of the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of its members. Freedom of Association, The Essentials of Human Rights describes the right as coming together with other individuals to collectively express, promote, pursue and/or defend common interests. It is both an individual right and a collective right, guaranteed by all modern and democratic legal systems, including the United States Bill of Rights, article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and international law, including articles 20 and 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work by the International Labour Organization also ensures these rights.

Freedom of Association is manifested through the right to join a trade union, to engage in free speech or to participate in debating societies, political parties, or any other club or association, including religious groups and organizations, fraternities, and sport clubs. It is closely linked with the Freedom of Assembly, particularly under the US Bill of Rights. The Freedom of Assembly is typically associated with political contexts, however, and depending on the source, (e.g. the Constitution, human rights instrument, etc.) the right to Freedom of Association may include the right to Freedom of Assembly.

Literally nothing in there says that we can do business with whomever we want... or not with whomever we want. Say for instance we are a group who provide a public service, and we do not want to do business with anyone a shade over :‌tone2:... as currently interpreted, "Freedom of Association" does not give us that right.

The courts have ruled that the right to freedom of assemble covers freedom of association as well.

Regardless, I don't believe that freedom of association applies to advertising.

To make it clear: you promoting your speech with your own money: just fine. You using my money to help promote your speech: not OK. (Even if I shared my money with you with that specific intent, which is frequently not the case--you often see large non-human entities promoting speech that a significant proportion of their members do not agree with. Which is just another of the reasons why it's problematic.)

People are making the speech that you're talking about. You want to shut them up.

No.

Either you don't mean that or you think Citizen's United was correct. Make up your mind.

OK. But it was people who did all of the stuff. What about those people? Why do you want to prevent them from organizing and speaking?

Ah, now that's where we finally come to the crux of the discussion. It's not the speaking that's the problem; it's the organizing and. And the reason I find that problematic is that it has a strong tendency to drown out other speech, so that getting your message heard stops being a matter of who has the best argument and becomes, instead, a matter of who has the most resources and the best organizing tactics. That's a fundamentally problematic thing.

So you do want to shut down newspapers! Amazing.

I know, right? Like...a printing press. What newspapers use to print their papers.

Where did I say anything at all to lead you to that conclusion?!? Is there any point anywhere in this conversation in which I mentioned printing presses?

What's "advertising" got to do with this? "Advertising" a political opinion? Pretty much the reason why freedom of speech is important. How do you get from there to commercial speech designed to sell something?

The courts have ruled that the right to freedom of assemble covers freedom of association as well.

Regardless, I don't believe that freedom of association applies to advertising.

To make it clear: you promoting your speech with your own money: just fine. You using my money to help promote your speech: not OK. (Even if I shared my money with you with that specific intent, which is frequently not the case--you often see large non-human entities promoting speech that a significant proportion of their members do not agree with. Which is just another of the reasons why it's problematic.)

The only thing that's clear is how anti-speech you are. No joke: apply your argument to a newspaper. When they print an editorial, how are they not violating exactly what you're talking about?

I don't know where the line is, but PACs and Super PACs do not seem like good things for our country, regardless of the issue. Maybe early on they were fine, when they existed for only a couple issues, but it seems like every issue has one now so a lot of political spending goes towards those issues.

It seems like it increases barrier to entry to have alternate viewpoints heard. The answer shouldn't be "make your own PAC".

While I wasn't a huge Bernie fan, I do think that each $50,000* he raised was more valuable than each $50,000 raised by Clinton or Trump from their various PACs (especially Clinton).

So maybe if these PACs were largely funded by individuals own $20, $50, or $100 donations I'd be less concerned about them. My understanding is their generally funded by the wealthy and companies only looking to increase or preserve profits (instead of actually competing in the market).